All Episodes
Previous Next
March 30, 2018 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
52:23
Orthodoxy Takes a Blow!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to another edition of Radio Renaissance.
This is Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, along with Paul Kersey, our usual commentator and insightful observer of things racial, immigration, and general culture of the United States of America, such as it is.
And fierce, adherent, and defender of the Second Amendment.
Ah yes, ah yes, which apparently is a specialty of the white man.
Just the other day weren't you telling us that 82% of the gun owners are white in the United States today?
Well, there was a massive rally in Washington DC and there was a sign that has been pictured and it's made its way around the internet as a new meme that says, I believe it says something along the lines of, and I'm paraphrasing, Only white men with guns are the true terrorists.
And of course in the eyes of our ideological enemies, that is the truth.
I guess that's so, if there were no white men with guns in this country.
Or, let's just go a little further, no white men at all.
What a paradise it would be.
Anyway, we have a number of interesting things to talk about this time, as we always do.
It's never a dull week when you have our angle on things.
I want to talk about David Reich's op-ed in the March 23rd issue of the New York Times.
And it's all on the subject of race.
He is one of these scientists who, he's a geneticist at Harvard, and he is honest enough to have taken a look at the data, and he has concluded, well, hold on, there is such a thing.
I mean, we may not want to use the word race, but there are populations and they are different.
I'd just like to read a few passages from this, I think, very, very significant op-ed.
He says, as a geneticist, I know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among races.
He says, West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years, and we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today's racial constructs are real.
That paragraph makes no sense.
He basically, at the end of the paragraph, he is refuting the concept of the contemporary zeitgeist of race being a social construct.
It's like, wait a second.
That's right.
What's this paragraph even mean?
Yes, he says race may be a social construct, but the differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today's racial constructs Are real!
Well, in other words, what we alleged racists have been pointing out is, well, ahrumf, ahrumf, ahem, ahem, looks like it's real.
He talks about susceptibility to diseases, for example, that different groups, I mean, after all, as he points out, evolving separately for 70,000 years.
And later on he points out that that is plenty of time for serious differences to have arrived, to have arisen.
But now this is an aspect of it I thought was really pretty good.
And I'm sorry this will go on for a few sentences, but I think it's worth quoting.
Go ahead.
I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science.
Well, he's right about that, and we've known that for a long time.
He goes on to say, I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made And we truly have no idea yet what they will be.
I have an idea, Dr. Reich.
I have lots of good ideas.
But they will be cited as scientific proof that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.
So he's saying, look out, folks.
There are group differences.
There really are.
Now, we don't know what's going to be proven in terms of what these group differences are, but if you are one of these people like an ostrich with your head in the sand saying, oh, no, no, no, no, there's no such thing as race, you're going to have your scientific legs cut out from under you.
Then he goes on to blaze more trails into the obvious.
He says, Since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations, the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.
Now, that all in itself, by New York Times standards, that is an extraordinary taboo.
It's a revolutionary statement to have had printed in the New York Times, especially when, at the beginning, the editor, the ombudsman, let slip the race may be a social construct, when the entire piece Premise after premise, fact after fact, statement after statement, completely contradicts that concept.
And again, you know, you were talking about racial realities that have laid dormant now for years, decades.
You know, Boasney and anthropology took over, what, in the 1920s?
1920s, yeah.
1920s, and has been led to, you know, Stephen Jay Gould's ability to manipulate data.
Of course, we all know all these walls that have kept these realities at bay.
They're falling.
They're falling by the wayside.
And this is a piece that's like, guys, Prepare.
Prepare.
This paradigm we've created, it will not last past science scrutiny.
Scientific scrutiny.
That's right.
Science is going to destroy this illusion, and he's smart enough to realize that.
Then he goes on to say, So how should we prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years genetic studies will show that many traits are influenced by genetic variations, and that these traits will differ on average across human populations?
It will be impossible.
Indeed, anti-scientific, foolish, and absurd to deny those differences.
Well, there you go.
There are going to be differences, and they are going to be determined to be heavily influenced by genes.
That's what this guy is saying.
Now, in the part that he continues, he answers his own question.
How are we supposed to prepare for this terrible news?
He says, well, It's going to be just like we've dealt with sex differences.
He says, well, we do know that there are differences between the sexes, but in a fair-minded society, we treat people as individuals, and if women can do the things that men can do, we've had all these terrible prejudices, we're slowly overcoming them, and that's how we'll just work it all out, just the way we've done with the sexes.
I say, keep dreaming, David Reich.
Keep dreaming.
Because if we get the kind of imbalance we have in professional sports, for example, there are no women in professional sports.
And if we get that kind of imbalance based on pure meritocracy in terms of nuclear physics, in terms of Nobel Prize winning undertakings in most domains, then it's not going to work out the way it has with men and women.
You can even go on about Silicon Valley Entrepreneurs, who was the female who created that blood plasma company that everyone was jumping on board.
They claimed she was the new Steve Jobs.
Her name escapes me, but she basically turns out that she took $7 billion of venture capital startup money and flushed it down the toilet, all based on this idea that Equality, of course, is the ultimate social construct.
And that's the society that I was born into, that you have lived your entire adult, most of your entire life has been under this cloud that equality is a social construct.
The world is the mandated, the federally mandated belief in equality, which is the ultimate social construct.
And there was an attempt over the past 60, 70 years to Create the birth of a new man this liberal minded man and as as dr. Reich points out We should we should also note that he's the author of a new book that just was published who we are and how we got here
Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past.
It's funny, that title brings up Sam Huntington's book, Who Are We?
Obviously, a little different, but at the end of the day, this type of anti-scientific mindset that has dominated the Western world for going on 80 years, I guess?
Since the end of World War II.
No need to get into why those dates coincide.
They were unable to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, and they were unable to win.
I guess that's a way to put it.
Before this type of... The trouble is, they did win in the elite institutions of American society.
They did win, but the scientific evidence for their mistakes is now becoming overwhelming.
And this David Reich is fighting a kind of rearguard action.
He reminds me of Steven Pinker's book, The Blank Slate.
And Pinker, oh, this was written, oh, maybe eight or nine years ago.
And Pinker is effectively taking the same position.
He's saying, look, look, fellas.
Genes are pretty damn important.
And if you start pretending that they don't have any effect on the traits we care about, you're going to be proven a fool.
But he then goes way out of his way, just like this David Reich fellow does, to explain how, but you can be a good liberal after all.
You can strive for equality, and we can treat people as individuals, and we can be this happy, multi-culti, harmonious society, after all, despite these discoveries in science that you might, in fact, find unnerving.
So, we will see now this book, who we are and how we got here.
I have not had a chance to read it yet, but I think we're going to order a review copy because he really goes into detail as to how different populations did different things.
One of the things that I understand he goes into is the idea that the caste system in India was something imposed on Indians by these wicked British.
He says, sorry, those guys, this whole caste system that has been keeping, it's been this hugely effective and elaborate anti-miscegenation system, the Indians have been practicing that for a long time before the Brits ever got there.
It's a form of eugenics.
Yes.
There's no denying it.
It's certainly a form of anti-miscegenation.
It is an attempt to keep populations separate.
And he points out that it is wrong to think of Indians as a coherent group at all.
India is a group of separate populations.
They've been kept separate that way because of this elaborate social structure that kept people from crossing.
Crossing cast lines.
So, now that's just one confirmation of common sense that apparently is in there that he has found in the genetic evidence.
So I'm sure there's lots more stuff.
But then, at the same time, I understand he's always saying, now don't worry about it, you know, we're all more equal than, we're all more similar than, we are different.
The usual eyewash To go along with the science and try to make this bitter pill go down with a little bit of egalitarian sugar coating.
In any case, I thought this is a very significant turn of events and it's an encouraging one.
The science is just becoming overwhelming.
I've said ever since the beginning of American Renaissance, science is on our side.
That all of the discoveries are going to prove that these ancient categories of human beings that, or you go back to Blumenbach, for heaven's sake, and Immanuel Kant, and David Hume, all these guys noticed racial differences.
And they said, look, something's going on here.
Thomas Jefferson, one of our great founders.
You know, it's fascinating.
American Renaissance was founded in the 1990, I believe.
1990, that's right.
So we're coming up on 30 years.
The main point is Charles Murray's book, Belker, came out in 1994.
I believe he's got another title coming out next year, and the title is basically taking the infamous, was it chapter 13 or 14?
I think it was 13.
Okay, but it's basically, it's got one of those titles like Race, Nation, and he's going to go all in on that chapter.
He's mentioned it in a couple AEI talks, so it'll be fascinating.
That would be wonderful.
Perhaps the Iron Curtain will lift ever so slightly.
And it'll be possible to write books of that kind again.
I think The Bell Curve came out in 1994, as you point out.
Five years ago, seven years ago, it would have been impossible to publish that.
And I would be delighted if the publication of not only David Reich's book, but also the Nicholas Wade book, A Troublesome Inheritance, that was something of a breakthrough.
I think the Iron Curtain may be ever so slightly lifting.
Let us certainly hope so.
Now, it is also the case that the Iron Curtain is lifting on the question of citizenship, to be included apparently in the 2020 Census, unless there is some kind of huge, huge rollback of what has been proposed by the Commerce Department.
Now, you know, the Justice Department is justifying adding the question about citizenship to the sentence because they say they need to properly enforce government mandates under the Voting Rights Act.
I don't quite follow their arguments, but they're saying we need to know how many people are citizens in every single block of the United States so that we know whether or not they're voting in proportion to the number of citizens.
Does that make any sense to you?
No, because I thought a lot of the Voting Rights Act, I thought some of those mandates had actually expired last year?
Yes, yes, yes.
But the Voting Rights Act does make it illegal to discriminate on any kind of basis of race.
Correct.
Particularly race.
And so the idea, presumably, is if we know the number of citizens in this census tract area that we know to be heavily black, then we will know exactly what percentage of eligible voters are in fact voting.
Now, I suppose you could argue that that's something of overwhelming interest to the Justice Department.
It's not a matter of overwhelming interest to me.
But at the present time, as you no doubt know, we know a general sense of how many citizens there are because there's something called the American Community Survey.
It's the long form of the census that is sent to 2.6% of the population.
But the Justice Department is saying, that gives us a macro picture, we need a micro picture.
And, you know, I'm more or less indifferent to knowing on a micro level who is a citizen, but apparently the Justice Department thinks it's important.
Now, a lot of people are horrified.
Absolutely horrified by the idea of our asking people whether they're citizens or not.
Did you know that Eric Holder has a new job?
He is chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
I was well aware of that.
That's been one of the things that he's made a point to try and get rid of these gerrymandered districts that are helping clusters where whites are to create Republican districts.
Of course, there's a Supreme Court case rising over Pennsylvania, I believe, and North Carolina.
There's a couple cases.
They'll probably roll into one like they did with Brown v. Board and a couple other cases.
He, of course, is trying to make sure that Democrats get the advantage whenever any kind of redistricting comes up.
And, as our listeners all know, the districts are drawn and the populations of each of the districts are established by the census.
But he says that the idea of asking people to express their citizenship, he says loads and loads of people, citizen, non-citizen, are just not even going to reply if there is this question, even if it's the last question of all.
Now, we can discuss whether or not that's the case.
Frankly, I don't see it that way.
If I'm an illegal immigrant, And I'm worried that this information is going in the wrong hands.
I won't answer it whether I'm asked if I'm a citizen or not.
I won't even send in the document then.
No, no.
Is this really going to suddenly terrify people who are here illegally?
I mean, after all, they can just say, no, I'm not a citizen.
And what about people who are here legally but are not citizens?
They just say, sure, I'm not a citizen.
What's wrong with that?
I don't understand why all of a sudden everyone is terrified that people who would ordinarily answer the census are not going to answer, just because that question is on there.
The census has always made a huge point that their information is kept confidential.
It does not go to ICE, it does not go to the Department of Homeland Security.
This is a Department of Commerce undertaking.
And so I'm sure that if this question is on there, that that will be just trumpeted from the rooftops.
Of course, I would argue that that data should go to ICE, because we have actually seen, under President Trump, a federal government agency can be highly effective.
Yes, yes, yes it can.
Yes, ICE, if it is actually told, yes, do what the law says you're supposed to do.
They know how to do it.
But Eric Holder says that this would be It could lead to devastating, decade-long impacts on voting rights and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funding.
I don't know how it would impact voting rights.
How on earth could it do that?
I mean, if you're a citizen, you can vote.
How's it going to affect it?
No.
But then all this stuff about all the billions of dollars that he wants to make sure you're going to the right place.
He said, the addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy.
And then he goes on to say, make no mistake, this decision is motivated purely by politics.
You know, the way the left reads minds is just incredible to me.
This is just such a pathetic example of assuming that you know the motives of other people, and I'm just so tired of that.
There are people on our side, of course, who make assumptions about the motives of Angela Merkel, for example.
We'll get into that some other day, but in any case, Of course, this is a return to the policies that were in place for quite some time.
Policies that were in place from 1820 to 1950.
So you're talking about, my gosh, I believe that these policies were in place...
Wasn't Jefferson still alive in 1820?
I think he and John Adams died on the same day, was it?
July 4th.
It was on July 4th.
I don't remember what day, but it could very well have been after 1820.
In any case, we've been doing it for a long time.
Yeah, exactly.
130 years.
And this is always, you know, the state of California.
has sued to stop this.
They say it's an unconstitutional attempt to discourage an accurate census count.
How come it could be unconstitutional now, but it was constitutional for 130 years from 1820 to 1950?
This is the sort of creative thinking that people who talk about the Living Constitution, by which they mean they can treat it as a dead letter.
Correct.
This is the kind of creative thinking that they're always coming up with.
But one of the things that Eric Holder, bless his soul, is worried about is that it's not just the representation in the districts.
One of the things that people are pointing out, if the illegals or the non-citizens in California are scared away, And because congressional seats are apportioned on the basis of residents, not citizens, that if they stay in the shadows, so to speak, then that California could lose a seat.
Lose a seat in Congress.
Because every 450,000 people or so, if 450,000 people don't show up...
I believe that's correct.
But I...
They're absolutely terrified of this prospect, of course.
But it's not just that, because it's programs like Medicaid, Head Start, National School Lunch Program.
All of these federal funding programs, your tax dollars and mine, are also based on the number of people who are there, legal or illegal, citizen or not.
And the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Their education fund says it would have catastrophic consequences for Latinos and all Americans.
Well, that's secondary.
That's tertiary.
That's not really a problem.
That's right.
And, of course, what you just talked about, you know, these programs that would lose federal funding based on representation, like Head Start National School Lunch Program, that's the reason why they're up in arms about this.
That's the sole reason.
Well, let us assume that they sincerely fear that immigrants, both legal and illegal, or non-citizens will be terrified and not sign, not send in the forms.
This is once again the mindset that leads to accommodation of any and every kind for people who are not citizens or people who don't even deserve to be here.
Illegal immigrants.
They're the only ones who theoretically could be bothered by this.
Illegal immigrants.
So what they're saying is, no, no, no, we have to count our darling illegal immigrants, not only because of all this funding, but anything that would scare them away, anything that might make them think they're not welcome, is something that is absolutely unconstitutional.
It's that mindset that particularly annoys me.
But we will see.
We will see whether this allegedly unconstitutional modification that goes back to the way things were for the first 130 years, the Republic, is actually allowed to exist.
Those were some great formative years for our Republic.
But then, you know, there's been another Trump policy.
And this is the Trump ban on any kind of immigrant welfare use.
This is something that has seldom been enforced, but immigrants who accept welfare, who are likely to become a public charge, they are not supposed to get green cards, and they can be, under certain circumstances, deported.
But, and in fact the current rules do make it tougher if an immigrant who is applying for green card status is getting cash welfare.
But, this is once again one of those great consequences of electing the right guy into the White House and changing the whole administration.
They are going to make it such that if you get health insurance subsidies, non-cash public benefits, things like the earned income tax credit, this is a form of welfare, like it or not.
And so immigrants who are accepting this stuff, they too could have their applications for regularization affected.
And this, of course, is going to affect a group that is the particular pets of the lefties.
That is to say, the DACA, the DACA people.
Correct.
And I will be absolutely delighted if, as a result of the fact that they got their snout in the public trough, that they have a hard time getting regularized, I will shed no tears.
It's one important point to make is that this does not really impact those who are here illegally, except for DACA.
And that is one of the problems.
One of the things I wish, obviously I think these went to the Supreme Court, although Prop 187 didn't.
It would be a lot of fun if someone within the Trump administration from the Justice Department actually tried to see if there was a way to go back and try and get Prop 187 to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Obviously, we know California stopped fighting it, but the fact... It's convoluted, I know, but Arizona's, what was it, 10B?
I don't remember their bill.
That actually did go to the Supreme Court.
SB 1040.
Yeah, exactly.
That one did go to the Supreme Court, regrettably, and it was gutted.
The thing is, I think the huge majority of Americans, even the ones who vote Democratic, are they happy about immigrants coming to this country and going on welfare?
I don't think they are.
Anybody who pays taxes, they're going to grind their teeth at the very idea.
And so, the fact that these chiselers and moochers, they're not going to be regularized and get any kind of green card, I think that's a wonderful thing and most people would agree.
Now, as you say, this will only affect people who are here legally and who are trying to get some kind of permanent status.
Now, the illegals, we should find other ways to get them to go.
But also, this new proposal would require more immigrants to post cash bonds if, according to their record, it looks like they'd go on a public charge.
And I like this.
The minimum amount would be $10,000.
Sounds good to me.
And, of course, you wonder where some guy who's likely to become a public charge is going to come up with $10,000.
Maybe George Soros is going to slip it into his pocket.
I'm sure there's a couple banks, you know, we're seeing some warning signs here that banks are going to start loosening their lending standards.
I'm sure that that would get, you know, you've got a little swarthy guy show up, that would knock a couple check boxes off for the diversity quota for that month's lending of capital.
But don't forget, bankers do have a bottom line.
I think it would be non-profits of some kind.
It would be some sort of local community.
They're churches.
They're churches who would kick in the dough.
They'd pick up a special collection.
Poor Alfredo here.
He's got to come up with $10,000 because he's liable to go on welfare, but we want him to stick around and get his foot in that public trough after all.
So anyway, now this is another piece of good news.
And then, continuing in the good news, apparently the Liberians have got to go home.
Let's talk about Liberia real quick.
There was a great article that I read at Breitbart not too long ago that Liberia, which in their constitution The only people who can be a citizen of Liberia are black.
No other race.
Again, race is not a social construct to the Liberians.
As Dave Reich is pointing out, you know, guess what guys?
We were wrong.
This isn't true.
Well, the Liberians have that enshrined in their constitution, which was modeled after the U.S.
Well, just like the Zimbabweans who are upset about the fact that there's no food production where they allowed White Rhodesians to come back.
Zimbabweans, I'm sorry, Liberians now want to relax that and allow non-blacks to become citizens of Liberia, which by the way, it's a nation that in 2013, 73% of its gross national income came from foreign aid.
So I'm sure there's going to be a line out the door of white Americans trying to get dual citizenship with Liberia.
Yeah, I'm sure there's going to be a crush on from all around the world.
Europeans, Asians, a whole lot of Japanese would love to be Liberian, let me tell you.
Well, I'll tell you.
It's going to be the latest fad.
And the good news that you mentioned, Mr. Taylor, is the fact that there are 4,000 Liberian immigrants within the United States who have lived here for decades.
They're about to lose their temporary legal status.
Actually, I believe it's today is March 29th when this goes... No, I'm sorry, two days from now.
March 31st.
Two days from now.
March 31st when this goes into effect and They're going to be forced to go back to Monrovia.
But they're going to have a year, I think.
They're going to have a year to pack their bags.
But what is so annoying about this is that they were here because of the unsettled conditions in Liberia—civil war, etc., etc.—but every 18 months Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama said, no, no, no, little deers mustn't be forced to go home.
We need to keep them.
And it takes a Donald Trump to say, look, deferred enforced departure is something that is only deferred.
It's not permanent.
It really gets my goat when these people say, well, OK, because of our lackadaisical enforcement, they've been here so long.
They've gotten used to it.
Oh, we can't enforce the law now.
No, no.
That's the way it is.
And finally, we have somebody who is prepared to say, your time's up.
And he did that, of course, with the 50,000 Haitians who've been here since 2010, since the earthquake.
I mean, the earthquake stopped.
The earthquake is over, fellas.
You all can go home.
And there are apparently 27,000 U.S.-born children who also lost their temporary protected status.
I must say, I'm just not grief-stricken when the rules are actually enforced.
They make it sound as though we owe them something, but that is the present mentality.
Yeah, this temporary protected status, again, like you said, it also... he just ended that for 200,000 Salvadorian immigrants living in the U.S.
since 2001 when, of course, another earthquake.
We've talked about this before.
Yes.
This was a big deal.
That group was given, just like the Haitians, 18 months to leave the country, of course, during that time.
They'll probably go ghost.
Who knows where they'll end up.
Find ways to, just like in that great Lovecraft story, the horror at Red Hook, they'll find ways to sneak into buildings where we never see them again and hide in the shadows.
Oh, I bet some of them will try to get married to U.S.
citizens.
Who knows what they will do?
At one time, Haitians were streaming across the border into Canada, as you recall.
But the Canadians, even the Canadians had had enough of that.
And they said, no, no, no, we're going to kick you right back.
At first, they were all virtuous and saying, look at those bad Trump-led Americans being mean to Haitians.
But after a certain number, they decided that Trump must have been right about that after all.
But then, yeah, the Liberians, apparently, there's quite a passel of Liberians in Minnesota.
And this is what Senator Amy Klobuchar has to say about these lovely people.
She says, Well, they may or may not have come legally, but their situation was legalized.
They've remained here legally and play a major role in Minnesota's economy.
We have a year before the status expires and during that time I will do everything to find a solution for these families.
The idea of rules apparently just go out the window if they are non-white people who can increase our diversity.
Are there any Minnesotans left in Minnesota? I mean we're at a point now where the democratic
elected governor a couple years ago lambasted the population who dared to comment about immigrants,
especially Somalians. He called the white citizens B-plus citizens. We don't need that anymore.
Obviously Liberians are more American than people who have been, who can date their
heritage and lineage back to the founding of places like St.
Paul or Minneapolis, who've been there for more than a couple centuries.
It's just, reading this type of stuff from Senator Amy Klobuchar, it's Again, we live in such a different world and it's taken a Trump to highlight the cold silver war that exists in the United States.
It really is.
Like this gun issue.
We're not going to get into that too much.
But you really are beginning to...
Understand what it was like to live in a society where you had to have the compromises between the slave states and the non-slave states to try and keep the union together.
And you're realizing that we really are at a stand and a moment where a sober voice like Dr. Reich is trying to warn liberals, the racists were right.
He wouldn't put it in those terms.
He wouldn't put it in those terms, but if you actually read his editorial, you're like, whoa, this guy gets where things are headed.
And that's the terrifying reality as you start to see more and more of the gloating of the left.
We saw that a lot with these anti-Second Amendment marches across the country.
March for our children, whatever it was.
It was a Bolshevik march to take our Second Amendment rights.
They're making it quite clear that they want to disarm primarily white people because 82% of guns are owned by white people.
And the one thing that we do know as things begin to get more and more beyond a coexisting There is no co-existence.
You see those stickers on cars.
Co-exist.
They don't want to co-exist.
They don't want our side to... I know you don't believe this.
We're not going to talk about it.
They don't want us to have the right to exist and have legal protections.
That's why their demographic reinforcements, whether they're illegal or legal from third world countries, are so vital to their continued assault on both the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and ultimately Our right to exist.
Oh, Mr. Kersey, the smarter ones want us to exist.
They just want us to be domesticated.
They want us to be there in case the airplanes cease to function, or the electrical system needs a little tuning up.
They want us to be there to pay the taxes.
They want us to be there because we can do certain useful things, so long as we're more or less kept on the new version of the plantation.
Well, if they want us to be the Eloi in their liberal, egalitarian world, I just don't think that's going to happen.
I think that we are seeing heroes rise.
And we're seeing them rise in places that, and in stories, such as our next piece where I'm going to say this, Ben Carson of all people, gifted hands himself, the great neurosurgeon from Baltimore, as he has taken over the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
He's been lambasted for spending $31,000 on furniture.
$31,000 on furniture. You know that's probably the best $31,000 that HUD has
ever spent mind you. Probably. Seriously.
What has happened?
One of the more pernicious developments during the Obama administration was his plan to affirmatively further in fair housing regulation.
The AFFH plan to basically redistribute Basically it's a plan to redistribute and flood predominantly white areas with more and more diversity on the federal dole, with complete federal backing.
That's right.
It was a means whereby 1,200 cities and counties, that's a lot of the population of the United States, all of those areas were going to be subject to a very fine-grained analysis as to what races of people were living in the nice parts of town, what races of people had access to good libraries, and if there was found to be any imbalance at all.
Then federal funds are gonna be withheld unless you rejigged things and made sure that everybody has a fair and equal chance at the goodies.
And it is astonishing.
Ben Carson, who had opposed this idea, what did he call it?
He called it social engineering.
He said, no, you gotta let people make their own decisions.
But the interesting thing about this is, not only has Ben Carson been against it, The whole AFFH, the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, aspect has been defunded from this otherwise pretty uniformly terrible omnibus spending bill.
And so that is a great first start.
But, as some of the commentators have pointed out, It would have to be affirmatively defunded, every budget, to stay off the books.
And until you actually rescind this regulation, it's like a Frankenstein monster.
It could come out from the dead as soon as, well, I guess I've got my monsters wrong.
Every full moon, it could come out of the graveyard and haunt us.
But apparently, because Congress has said, we are not interested in this, that gives Ben Carson a much stronger hand in unilaterally saying, we're just going to dump this regulation.
You know, it's funny.
This is basically the reverse, this program.
Paul Sperry wrote a lot of really great articles for the New York Post, I believe, back in 2014, where they would talk about how Obama wanted to go in and get as much racial data as possible, so they could do when it came to putting more and more Section 8 vouchers in places that didn't have it, just to make sure that misery was spread correctly, as opposed to being clustered.
I think that's the word that the left is using now.
Violence is clustered.
It's clustered.
Well, why is that?
Because there's no whites.
I do agree that that is something that will, it probably will happen.
I think that Sleepy Ben Carson, he's doing some wonderful things in HUD, besides spending $31,000 on furniture, which again, I'm not being hyperbolic, that was the best amount, that was the best spending that HUD has done.
Well, I don't know, Mr. Kersey, I'd have to see the furniture.
But yes, by and large, the money that HUD spends, I wish that, you're right, they could just throw it into the air for all I care, for the good it's doing for our country.
But yeah, I thought what was fascinating about this whole idea of using statistics to prove discrimination, it's the usual disparate impact game.
If the people who are close to swimming pools, publicly funded swimming pools, if they are more likely to be white than black, then uh-oh, too bad, that's no good.
Or the better schools, if they're more likely to be in white neighborhoods, uh-oh, that's proof of discrimination.
This thinking has just gone into where we live, our zoning laws.
It's just extraordinary.
And so this is a first and welcome blow against this terrible intrusion.
Disparate access was the term that they used as opposed to disparate impact.
And that's fascinating when you think that Again, this was a plan that the radical left put into place under Obama.
I think it was in late 2013, early 2014.
It was pretty near the end of his second term.
2014 this this came this came like because there was a book was pretty near the end of his second term
Yeah, yeah, and um there was a I don't remember the name of the book, but there was a
Stanley Kirks wrote a book on this topic about about spreading about what this was all about
And remember, this is the ultimate aim of the left, though.
Why do you think that refugees are put in states where you basically have a monochromatic population?
Like Maine, or Minnesota, or Wyoming.
All these states that have an abundance of social capital start to put people in, and then if you had this data in place, you could say, well gosh, all these white states, Vermont, New Hampshire, these white enclaves in the suburbs of Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham.
There's a disparate access.
They're too nice.
They're too pleasant.
You can't just have only white people benefiting from these lovely places.
No, that's been policy for a long time now.
So, just to recap, we've got some good news.
We've had some good news this time.
The Trump ban on immigrant welfare use, very good.
The fact that the Liberians have got to follow the Haitians and the Salvadorans home, that's excellent.
And this affirmatively furthering Fair Housing.
Fair Housing, oh boy.
It's on the first step into the grave.
All of these things are to be celebrated.
But we must conclude on a more sobering note.
And this was something that I had just learned about earlier today.
And you called to my attention this South African so-called racist who has been condemned to three years in prison.
for uttering racist remarks.
Her name is Vicky Momberg.
She lived in Johannesburg and now she's apparently in the prison in Soweto.
Imagine what a pleasant place that is likely to be for a white woman.
Definitely not going to have the same accommodations that the communist terrorist Nelson Mandela had for 27 years.
Not on Robins Island, no.
I think her life is probably going to be a living hell.
But in any case, in 2016, in February, she was videoed saying very rude things to police officers.
Her car had just been robbed, and she was in an extremely excited state, but she referred to the police officers as caffers.
Now, I'm sure you're familiar with this word.
It's really a Muslim word, meaning an unbeliever.
We are all Kafirs by those standards.
But apparently, for reasons that are somewhat obscure to me, it became the common insulting term for blacks.
And apparently, it is now said to have the same impact as the N-word, and so they talk about the K-word.
It's also pejorative there, you're right.
Yes, this is one that you're not supposed to talk about.
But apparently Momberg, Ms.
Momberg, was saying, I'm happy for a white person to assist me, or a colored person, or an Indian person.
I do not want a black person to assist me.
She's talking about the police.
And then she really, I mean, she said some pretty foul stuff.
She said, if I see a kaffir, I will drive him over.
I have a gun.
I will shoot everybody.
She was pretty riled up.
And as a consequence, Magistrate Praveena Raghunandan.
I dare say this is an Indian person.
And Praveena sounds like a woman's name to me.
But Praveena Raghunandan has decided to make an example of her.
Because this is the second time that she has been hauled in for using the K word.
And he refused to allow her to remain on bail.
They hauled her right out of the courtroom into the Soweto jail.
And apparently, this is based on a legal principle called Cremen injuria.
How's your Latin pronunciation?
I'm assuming this is Latin.
Cremen injuria, which means harming a person's dignity.
Now, boy oh boy, I hope that never becomes a crime in this country.
But this is a really quite terrifying thing.
Her lawyer, of course, said that Mrs. Momberg's language was a reflection of her emotional state after having been robbed.
And it's not that she is a hardcore hater of black people, but apparently she had said rude things about blacks in other contexts as witnesses were apparently persuaded to testify.
And so, this is one of the first examples of what could then be codified very quite seriously into law.
They've got a new proposed law in which any person whose communication advocates hatred or incites violence or causes contempt or ridicule Oh boy.
If your words cause contempt or ridicule... If you criticize the government, if you criticize corruption, if you criticize taxes being higher, that could be considered... It sure could, if it's a black government.
Exactly.
If there's any racial element to what you say, a first offender up to three years in prison and a repeat offender could get up to ten years in prison.
Not only do white South African landowners face the prospect of having their land that's been in their families for generations, perhaps even going back to the 17th century in some cases.
Not only do they face the prospect in August of having their land confiscated without compensation, but now if they send an email to a friend on another farm and they point out something that, I can't believe this government's doing to this, I can't believe we gave away our country back in 1994, that could be considered Inciting violence, or advocating hatred, or causing contempt or ridicule.
They could then lose their land.
They could then be put in prison for this.
It's this causing contempt or ridicule.
Boy, oh boy.
That is so elastic.
It could mean anything at all.
And this, I fear, is the kind of future that could be in store for us.
And needless to say, contempt or ridicule is a one-way street in South Africa.
You can have Julius Malema saying that we're not talking about slaughtering white people yet.
But that's okay.
He's not going to go to jail for that.
He's not going to be even... People will just raise a few eyebrows about that.
He's one step closer to the presidency is what he is.
Yes.
By saying that type of jingoistic... That's exactly right.
And what's that song, Get Me My Machine Gun?
Even Nelson Mandela used to sing that song.
Yes, he did.
And get me my machine gun so we can shoot the boar.
No, no, that's perfectly fine.
All of this stuff about inciting racial hatred, inciting violence, contempt, ridicule, it's all going to be a one-way street.
And apparently, they are already fining people very, very seriously.
Just last month, a judge ordered a white man to pay 100,000 Rand, that's about 7,000 U.S.
dollars, for using the epithet, I'm sure it was the K word, although it's not specified in this report, during an argument.
Because the judge said the word cannot be heard without flinching.
Kaffir.
I didn't flinch.
Kaffir.
He hasn't flinched yet.
Well, you're a sturdy lad.
You're resistant to sticks and stones that may break your bones, but words are never going to hurt you.
Well, apparently they're going to hurt a lot of white people.
I think that's something we can absolutely look forward to.
Yet another reason why the government of Australia must fast-track visas for not just farmers, not just landowners, but there must be contingency plans for what's coming.
The retribution.
You're beginning to see more and more of the language being used by black South African leaders and politicians.
This is all about retribution.
You're even seeing revenge.
It is getting increasingly difficult.
I'm flinching, not by the word cuffer, But reading the stories and the type of ideas that are not just spreading, but that have already taken hold of the black South Africans and what comes next, it's like you said, it's not yet.
But the fact is, they're ready to get to that step.
Yes, it's on its way.
And I think there are more and more Americans who realize that this could be our future as we become a hated minority, which is the direction that we're moving in.
But anyway, I did want to wrap up by pointing out that I may not be on the next podcast.
I may have to ask Henry Wolfe to take my place because I'm going on a European lecture tour.
Were you aware of this?
I was aware.
Yes, yes.
And this, I find a very, very encouraging thing.
These, I mean, I'm calling it a lecture tour.
That makes it sound as though I'm the one guy.
But no, these are various conferences.
There are going to be four different groupings in four different countries in Europe over a period of about ten days.
And we're going to be giving talks.
It'll be kind of like AR conferences.
And it was very much like, I think, the Erkenbrand conference that I attended in October of last year in Rotterdam.
These are groups of very sharp, smart, wide-awake, attractive white people who realize what's going on.
And they are operating under even more difficult circumstances than we are because they can legally go to jail for saying that it's just like South Africa.
There are certain things that are very difficult for them to say and the social pressures on them are just as bad.
But I'm going to be in Stockholm and Helsinki and Antwerp and in Magdeburg, Germany.
It's going to be very, very exciting.
I think this is, to me, the beginning of what I like to call the Worldwide Brotherhood of Europeans.
No, it's at a time when so much hate against us seems to have taken hold of policy and not only Nations like South Africa, but in our own homeland, in Europe, in European countries, being enshrined in law in places like Scotland, where now people are being harassed and being told, hey, we're not really worried about crimes that are actually being committed, we're more worried about cyber crimes and people saying bad things about immigrants and whatnot.
At the same time, Almost against all odds, heroes are rising.
And that is the most important thing to remember.
What might seem insignificant could be the significant moment that gives someone out there the courage.
We're about to come upon the 40th anniversary of Solzhenitsyn's speech to Harvard in 1978, where he said that Western man seems to have lost courage.
That's not the case right now.
No.
Western man, I think, is regaining his courage.
And that, to me, is what is so inspiring about these meetings that I'll be attending.
Some of them will be smaller.
Some of them will be larger.
And the one in Helsinki, Finland, will be perhaps the first public meeting of a racially, consciously-oriented group.
I think this is a very significant breakthrough, that these things are happening all around the white world.
Again, to stay as positive as possible and to keep people not just motivated but to understand that courage is contagious, heroes are rising and they're going to pop up in places you never thought possible as long as you maintain that courage in the face of The greatest adversity, you know, I think people have ever confronted.
Yes, and as I often say, the lines are not so sharp and the crisis is not so clear, but this is like the Battle of Tours.
This is the Siege of Vienna.
This is Blood River.
I mean, we are fighting for our lives, and I think more and more of our people are waking up and realizing that.
Well, thanks as always for a great podcast, and either I or the indefatigable Henry Wolfe, we'll be seeing you next week.
For the perspicacious Jared Taylor, I'm Paul Kersey.
Our time is up.
▲
Export Selection